jcsuperstar wrote:i was going to add that, since metta is a feeling it could lead into insight much the same as the feeling of the breath coming in and out of the nose could.. maybe..

Not according to Classical Theravada thought, as far as I understand it. Metta is a sort of visualisation, a mind-created object. Insight objects have to be "real" (paramatta dhammas). I presume that in the technique that Bhante Vimalaramsi teaches the insights would arise from examining the hindrances, etc, that arise while attempting to focus on metta.

mikenz66 wrote:Not according to Classical Theravada thought, as far as I understand it. Metta is a sort of visualisation, a mind-created object. Insight objects have to be "real" (paramatta dhammas). I presume that in the technique that Bhante Vimalaramsi teaches the insights would arise from examining the hindrances, etc, that arise while attempting to focus on metta.

MettaMike

Metta Bhavana might be called a visualization but I dont think metta is visualized. In my understanding metta is the result of the visualization. This result is a type of calm abiding or Jhanna. At that point the object of the meditation is not the visualization but the result. This result can be looked into like this "Does this result come from anything fixed or unchanging? Is this result fixed or unchanging?"

Metta

Gabriel

"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

gabrielbranbury wrote:Metta Bhavana might be called a visualization but I dont think metta is visualized. ...

I may not be expressing it well, but what I meant was that, as I read the texts, metta is something created by the mind, not something "real" (paramatta), so the metta itself is not an "insight object". Whereas the sensations associated with the motion of my foot or my abdomen can be "real" (though we usually start by conceptualising the foot, but that's another issue).

In fact, again according to my reading, to develop the Commentarial version of Jhana, one needs to switch to a mind-created object. So when Visuddhimagga (and teachers such as Ajahn Brahm) talk about going into Jhana via the breath they talk about the arising of a nimitta (which is a mind-created object) and the switching of attention from the breath to that object.

Ānāpānasati can take two directions. If the meditator strives to be mindful of the form or manner of the in-breath and the out-breath, then it is samatha meditation and leads to one pointed of mind. On the other hand, if the meditator notes the sensation of the in-breath and out-breath as it moves and touches, then it is vipassanā meditation. The element of wind or motion (vayo-dhātu) is rūpa or matter, while the awareness or consciousness of the sensation is nāma or mind. Therefore, ānāpānasati can be considered as vipassanā, and can lead to high levels of insight wisdom.

Metta and Vipassana at the same time is:Equanimity informs wisdom and wisdom informs equanimity.

My thinking is that it is upekkha which informs metta; upekkha and metta which informs karuna; and upekkha, metta, and karuna that informs mudita.

Equanimity-Peace-Upekkha is vital for the awakening process. Compassion-Metta is beneficial for awakening and vital for bringing awareness of upekkha to other beings. This may take forms of Karuna-Kindness and Mudita-Appreciation or they may not. Karuna and Mudita can arise without Metta and Upekkha. When Upekkha is arising and there is awareness of another being metta and one or both of the others may arise as well.

By beginning with investigating mudita and each of the others singly one can develop awareness of all of the viharas to upekkha but it is more difficult to arrive at upekkha when doing vipassana without doing the viharas because it is probably unclear what the quality of equanimity is and one must simply get to equanimity from dukkha while attempting to distinguish between the viharas at the same time. So I would say clear knowledge of all of the viharas are vital to ease in progressing in vipassana but only upekkha is vital to the ongoing process of progressing in vipassana with ease.

Discernment of these qualities are simply an arising of it and an awareness of the quality arising. If one has these qualities arising one can discern the qualities. If the qualities are not arising one will have to cause a quality to arise by conceiving of it first. How these qualities are fabricated will depend on the combined efficacies of the developments of concentration, of insight and of each of the four qualities.

"And how has a monk attained the status of a Brahma? Here, monks, a monk dwells pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, likewise the second quarter, the third and the fourth. Thus above, below, across and everywhere, and to all as to himself, he dwells pervading the entire world with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, vast, exalted, measureless, without hostility and without ill will. Her dwells pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with compassion ... with altruistic joy ... with equanimity ... without ill will. It is in such a way that a monk has attained the status of a Brahma.

Note to Sutta: The four meditations to be described are known as the Brahma-vihara, "the Divine Abodes', hence a monk who attains them is said to have attained the status of a Brahma (brahmapatta). Elsewhere the development of the brahma-vihara is called the Path to the company of Brahma (See DN 13, MN 99 etc.) Again, AA (Anguttara Atthakatha) interprets the text to mean that the monk here is one who has attained arahantship based on the four brahma-vihara.

mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Chris wrote:Note to Sutta: The four meditations to be described are known as the Brahma-vihara, "the Divine Abodes', hence a monk who attains them is said to have attained the status of a Brahma (brahmapatta). Elsewhere the development of the brahma-vihara is called the Path to the company of Brahma (See DN 13, MN 99 etc.) Again, AA (Anguttara Atthakatha) interprets the text to mean that the monk here is one who has attained arahantship based on the four brahma-vihara.

Interesting. The commentary and suttas you cite seem to be at odds with one another.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Chris wrote:Note to Sutta: The four meditations to be described are known as the Brahma-vihara, "the Divine Abodes', hence a monk who attains them is said to have attained the status of a Brahma (brahmapatta). Elsewhere the development of the brahma-vihara is called the Path to the company of Brahma (See DN 13, MN 99 etc.) Again, AA (Anguttara Atthakatha) interprets the text to mean that the monk here is one who has attained arahantship based on the four brahma-vihara.

Interesting. The commentary and suttas you cite seem to be at odds with one another.

Metta,Retro.

There are many fine points to consider. I am making efforts to get to the bottom of these in the free for all forum thread called: Feelings. At least we have made a start of on it and there is some informed comment in the thread so far from Ven. Dhammanando. It has been helpful for my understanding. Feel free to add questions there as well.metta & upekkha

non-Buddhists can try to do metta all they want and go hug the hugging ma and other wierd things-- they won't be able to succeed in practicing real metta.

Metta is radiation of good will through the Triple Gem, it is a love of all beings as no different from yourself. The Triple Gem makes one actualize the practice, without which one only pretends to practice metta -- only says the words, but does not know metta.

One who does not have faith in the Triple Gem will not be able to realize metta practice.

I remember trying to do metta without the Triple Gem -- it just didn't work.

green wrote:non-Buddhists can try to do metta all they want and go hug the hugging ma and other wierd things-- they won't be able to succeed in practicing real metta.

I don't think this opinion is supported in the Suttas.

In the Assalāyana Sutta (MN. 93) the Buddha has the following exchange with an unconverted brahmin:

“Although Master Gotama says this, still the brahmins think thus: ‘Brahmins are the highest caste, those of any other caste are inferior; brahmins are the fairest caste, those of any other caste are dark; only brahmins are purified, not non-brahmins; brahmins alone are the sons of Brahma, the offspring of Brahma, born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.’”

“What do you think, Assalāyana? Is only a brahmin capable of developing a mind of loving-kindness towards a certain region, without hostility and without ill will, and not a noble, or a merchant, or a worker?”

“No, Master Gotama. Whether it be a noble, or a brahmin, or a merchant, or a worker — those of all four castes are capable of developing a mind of loving-kindness towards a certain region, without hostility and without ill will.”

“Then on the strength of what [argument] or with the support of what [authority] do the brahmins in this case say thus: ‘Brahmins are the highest caste, those of any other caste are inferior; brahmins are the fairest caste, those of any other caste are dark; only brahmins are purified, not non-brahmins; brahmins alone are the sons of Brahma, the offspring of Brahma, born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma’?”

Note that Assalāyana does not specify any religious affiliation for those who are capable of developing mettā and nor does the Buddha contradict him.

And in the Cullasīhanāda Sutta (MN. 11) the Buddha says concerning outside teachers:

“Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of attachment. What four? Attachment to sensual pleasures, attachment to views, attachment to rules and observances, and attachment to a doctrine of self.

“Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full comprehension of all kinds of attachment, they do not completely describe the full comprehension of all kinds of attachment.

[...]

“They describe the full comprehension of attachment to sensual pleasures, attachment to views, attachment to precepts and vowed observances, but without describing the full comprehension of attachment to a doctrine of self. Why is that? Those good recluses and brahmins do not understand this last instance of attachment as it really is. Therefore, though they claim to propound the full comprehension of all kinds of attachment, they describe only the full comprehension of attachment to sensual pleasures, attachment to views, and attachment to precepts and vowed observances, without describing the full comprehension of attachment to a doctrine of self.”

So, the Buddha concedes that outside teachers may describe the full comprehension of attachment to sensual pleasures. In other words, they may lead their disciples to a comprehension of the gratification and peril in sense-pleasures and the advantage of renouncing them. This is the only kind of paññā that is needed for success in samatha-bhāvanā, of which mettā-bhāvanā is one form.

Metta is radiation of good will through the Triple Gem,

Mettā is the wish for beings to be happy. It is merely a more exalted form of the wholesome mental factor of non-hate and has no necessary connection with the Triple Gem.

it is a love of all beings as no different from yourself.

Mettā can be devloped to that extent, after the stage called the "breaking of the barriers", but in its preliminary development its focus is only on the happiness of particular beings.

The Triple Gem makes one actualize the practice, without which one only pretends to practice metta -- only says the words, but does not know metta.

What actualizes the practice is not the Triple Gem, but rather, the repeated advertence to the proximate cause of mettā, namely, sattānaṃ manāpabhāva-dassana — the perception of what is lovable in living beings.

I remember trying to do metta without the Triple Gem -- it just didn't work.

Fair enough, but you over-generalize when you claim that your experience will be true for everyone.

green wrote:non-Buddhists can try to do metta all they want and go hug the hugging ma and other wierd things-- they won't be able to succeed in practicing real metta.

I don't think this opinion is supported in the Suttas.

In the Assalāyana Sutta (MN. 93) the Buddha has the following exchange with an unconverted brahmin:

“Although Master Gotama says this, still the brahmins think thus: ‘Brahmins are the highest caste, those of any other caste are inferior; brahmins are the fairest caste, those of any other caste are dark; only brahmins are purified, not non-brahmins; brahmins alone are the sons of Brahma, the offspring of Brahma, born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.’”

“What do you think, Assalāyana? Is only a brahmin capable of developing a mind of loving-kindness towards a certain region, without hostility and without ill will, and not a noble, or a merchant, or a worker?”

“No, Master Gotama. Whether it be a noble, or a brahmin, or a merchant, or a worker — those of all four castes are capable of developing a mind of loving-kindness towards a certain region, without hostility and without ill will.”

“Then on the strength of what [argument] or with the support of what [authority] do the brahmins in this case say thus: ‘Brahmins are the highest caste, those of any other caste are inferior; brahmins are the fairest caste, those of any other caste are dark; only brahmins are purified, not non-brahmins; brahmins alone are the sons of Brahma, the offspring of Brahma, born of his mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma’?”

Note that Assalāyana does not specify any religious affiliation for those who are capable of developing mettā and nor does the Buddha contradict him.

And in the Cullasīhanāda Sutta (MN. 11) the Buddha says concerning outside teachers:

“Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of attachment. What four? Attachment to sensual pleasures, attachment to views, attachment to rules and observances, and attachment to a doctrine of self.

“Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full comprehension of all kinds of attachment, they do not completely describe the full comprehension of all kinds of attachment.

[...]

“They describe the full comprehension of attachment to sensual pleasures, attachment to views, attachment to precepts and vowed observances, but without describing the full comprehension of attachment to a doctrine of self. Why is that? Those good recluses and brahmins do not understand this last instance of attachment as it really is. Therefore, though they claim to propound the full comprehension of all kinds of attachment, they describe only the full comprehension of attachment to sensual pleasures, attachment to views, and attachment to precepts and vowed observances, without describing the full comprehension of attachment to a doctrine of self.”

So, the Buddha concedes that outside teachers may describe the full comprehension of attachment to sensual pleasures. In other words, they may lead their disciples to a comprehension of the gratification and peril in sense-pleasures and the advantage of renouncing them. This is the only kind of paññā that is needed for success in samatha-bhāvanā, of which mettā-bhāvanā is one form.

Metta is radiation of good will through the Triple Gem,

Mettā is the wish for beings to be happy. It is merely a more exalted form of the wholesome mental factor of non-hate and has no necessary connection with the Triple Gem.

it is a love of all beings as no different from yourself.

Mettā can be devloped to that extent, after the stage called the "breaking of the barriers", but in its preliminary development its focus is only on the happiness of particular beings.

The Triple Gem makes one actualize the practice, without which one only pretends to practice metta -- only says the words, but does not know metta.

What actualizes the practice is not the Triple Gem, but rather, the repeated advertence to the proximate cause of mettā, namely, sattānaṃ manāpabhāva-dassana — the perception of what is lovable in living beings.

I remember trying to do metta without the Triple Gem -- it just didn't work.

Fair enough, but you over-generalize when you claim that your experience will be true for everyone.

Best wishes,Dhammanando Bhikkhu

It is impossible that a deluded person can practice true metta-

Buddha clearly differentiates the SYSTEMATIC practice of Buddhist metta by a Noble Disciple (i.e. a Buddhist) who takes refuge in the Triple Gem from the metta of an ordinary person:

SN 42.8Sankha Suttahttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#brahma1"That disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of covetousness, devoid of ill will, unbewildered, alert, mindful — keeps pervading the first direction with an awareness imbued with compassion... appreciation... equanimity, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety, he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with equanimity — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without hostility, without ill will. Just as a strong conch-trumpet blower can notify the four directions without any difficulty, in the same way, when the awareness-release through equanimity is thus developed, thus pursued, any deed done to a limited extent no longer remains there, no longer stays there."

AN 4.125Metta SuttaLoving-kindness (1)

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html"Now the gods of a High Divinity's retinue have a life-span of one aeon. An ordinary person [who has not attained the Noble Eightfold Path] stays there for his life-span; but after he has used up the whole life-span enjoyed by those gods, he leaves it all, and [according to what his past deeds may have been] he may go down even to hell, or to an animal womb, or to the ghost realm.But one who has given ear to the Perfect One stays there [in that heaven] for his life-span, and after he has used up the whole life-span enjoyed by those gods, he eventually attains complete extinction of lust, hate and delusion in that same kind of heavenly existence.

"It is this that distinguishes, that differentiates, the wise hearer who is ennobled [by attainment of the Noble Path] from the unwise ordinary man, when, that is to say, there is a destination for reappearance [after death, but an arahant has made an end of birth].

a tibetan monk was up here this week and i took one of the monks from my Wat to go see him talk, it was quite interesting for me because it turned out that his talk was all about "loving compassion" as he put it, but basicly metta, and metta as one's main practice. he didnt reference any sutta/sutras, but everything he taught was just buddhism, no talk of bodhisattvas etc, just letting go of self, of attachments and of metta. it was an odd experience as this sort of thing tends to always happen to me, if i'm interested in a given subject, it just seem to fly into my life.

he talked about how many people in the west are interested in meditation, but that metta was a more powerful practice , and i know many here will doubt that, or argue against that, but i know that from zens of zen practice, much of my meditation never really left the zafu, and i see this in most western zen /mahayana buddhists, and in fact it wasnt until i was practicing theravada on a regular basis that i could really take what happened on my butt and carry into out into the world. maybe western buddhism is somewhat out of whack , i dont know? but also to be fair most western buddhist i meet (in real life not online) seem to be more about being a buddhist than they are about practicing buddhism.

สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

Chris wrote:At other times, mostly really, I think of a cute little baby or a cat or dog for whom I have loving feelings. This usually arouses metta ... and then I continue with extending metta using a fairly formulaic method.

green wrote:It is impossible that a deluded person can practice true metta-

Buddha clearly differentiates the SYSTEMATIC practice of Buddhist metta by a Noble Disciple (i.e. a Buddhist) who takes refuge in the Triple Gem from the metta of an ordinary person:

If by "systematic practice" you mean the use of the brahmavihāra attainments as a basis for insight and liberation, then of course I would agree with you. This isn't to be found outside the Buddha's teaching, for the reason I mentioned in my last post: outside teachers cannot teach full comprehension of attachment to self doctrines (attavādupādāna).

But in your earlier post your claims that "[non-Buddhists] won't be able to succeed in practicing real metta" and that they "only pretend to practice metta -- only say the words, but do not know metta" seem rather more sweeping claim than your present one. There is nothing "unreal" about the mettā that a non-Buddhist might cultivate in meditation and practice in his dealings with others. It's just that it won't be adequate for the highest goal if it is unaccompanied by the development of right view. (But nor will the mettā cultivated by a Buddhist if s/he neglects right view development).

Regarding the two sutta passages that you quote, one should note that the vital distinction is between the practice of a noble disciple (i.e. stream-enterers, once-returners etc.) and that of a wordling. This is not the same as the distinction between the practice of one who has gone for refuge and one who has not. The class of those who have gone for refuge will include both noble disciples and worldlings.

jcsuperstar wrote:i was going to add that, since metta is a feeling it could lead into insight much the same as the feeling of the breath coming in and out of the nose could.. maybe..

Not according to Classical Theravada thought, as far as I understand it. Metta is a sort of visualisation, a mind-created object. Insight objects have to be "real" (paramatta dhammas). I presume that in the technique that Bhante Vimalaramsi teaches the insights would arise from examining the hindrances, etc, that arise while attempting to focus on metta.

MettaMike

The way I see it is that Metta is a characteristic of a mind moment, and that through our will we can have mind moments that have this characteristic. As such, Metta is a Paramatta Dhamma, namely a Cetasika, that can be seen directly.

Also the mechanisms of Kamma become visible if we pay attention to the mind state before, during and after a session of Metta. We can see that mind states are conditioned, we can see how practice can condition mind states and how a difference can be made on a mind continuum in the right or wrong direction. Guarding the mind in the right direction is driver for practice.

It all cames together, Right Concentration, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right View...

green wrote:It is impossible that a deluded person can practice true metta-

Buddha clearly differentiates the SYSTEMATIC practice of Buddhist metta by a Noble Disciple (i.e. a Buddhist) who takes refuge in the Triple Gem from the metta of an ordinary person:

If by "systematic practice" you mean the use of the brahmavihāra attainments as a basis for insight and liberation, then of course I would agree with you. This isn't to be found outside the Buddha's teaching, for the reason I mentioned in my last post: outside teachers cannot teach full comprehension of attachment to self doctrines (attavādupādāna).

But in your earlier post your claims that "[non-Buddhists] won't be able to succeed in practicing real metta" and that they "only pretend to practice metta -- only say the words, but do not know metta" seem rather more sweeping claim than your present one. There is nothing "unreal" about the mettā that a non-Buddhist might cultivate in meditation and practice in his dealings with others. It's just that it won't be adequate for the highest goal if it is unaccompanied by the development of right view. (But nor will the mettā cultivated by a Buddhist if s/he neglects right view development).

Regarding the two sutta passages that you quote, one should note that the vital distinction is between the practice of a noble disciple (i.e. stream-enterers, once-returners etc.) and that of a wordling. This is not the same as the distinction between the practice of one who has gone for refuge and one who has not. The class of those who have gone for refuge will include both noble disciples and worldlings.

Best wishes,Dhammanando Bhikkhu

Greetings Bhante,

By a systematic practice, I mean the taking of the Triple Gem in conviction and then practicing in accordance with the dhamma.

Buddha defines one who can claim to be a follower of the Dhamma:

Mahanama SuttaTo Mahanama (2)AN 11.13"One who is aroused to practice is one of conviction, not without conviction. One arousedto practice is one with persistence aroused, not lazy. One aroused to practice is one of establishedmindfulness, not muddled mindfulness. One aroused to practice is centered in concentration, notuncentered. One aroused to practice is discerning, not undiscerning.

Actually the sutta you cited quite agrees, one can get partial metta. But Buddha clearly states, that a non-Buddhist practicing metta would be as likely to go to hell after entering heaven...that's like saying that a person who says he REALLY loves someone can then want to kill that person in the next moment...split personality disorder or whatever psychological term you might want to use. Saint in one life, Pol Pot the next life...that is not real metta.

So does the Buddha say of any of the blind men, that their partial knowledge of the elephant is true knowledge? He says of the blind brahmins leading the blind, they all fall in the ditch. So how could partial metta be true metta?

“The incomparable Wheel of Dhamma has been set in motion by the Blessed One in the deer sanctuary at Isipatana, and no seeker, brahmin, celestial being, demon, god, or any other being in the world can stop it.”

But Buddha clearly states, that a non-Buddhist practicing metta would be as likely to go to hell after entering heaven

Not really interested in getting into a debate here, but isn't there a sutta where the Buddha tells a Brahmin that the four Brahmaviharas are a way to meet Brahma (i.e. to be reborn in the Brahma-realms through achieving jhana)?

“The incomparable Wheel of Dhamma has been set in motion by the Blessed One in the deer sanctuary at Isipatana, and no seeker, brahmin, celestial being, demon, god, or any other being in the world can stop it.”